Is correspondence true (in CR)?

  Benjamin Davies revised criticism #2321.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and/or has more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

  Benjamin Davies criticized idea #2320.

CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.

#2320·Erik OrrjeOP, 3 months ago

I think correspondence is to epistemology as adaptation is to evolution. Knowledge that corresponds more to reality tends to be more useful (and with more reach), similar to biological adaptation.

  Erik Orrje submitted idea #2320.

CR is an evolutionary theory. There's no need for correspondence in Darwinism. Therefore, we don't need it in CR either.

  Erik Orrje started a discussion titled ‘Is correspondance true (in CR)?’.

This thread is based on Lucas Smalldon's talk and article on correspondance: https://barelymorethanatweet.com/. Later Dennis Hackethal followed up with criticism on X: https://x.com/dchackethal/status/1977089334294516124. This is my attempt to continue the discussion here on Veritula.